Premature Departures in the Ben Howland Era
by bluebland on Feb 8, 2010 12:26 AM PST
Email
PrintIt's the million dollar question with our program. It's haunted us for years. It has nothing to do with the zone defense, or with the aberrational confidence in Mr. Dragojevic (which is maddening precisely because it's an aberration). It has to do with our premature departures, and I think the topic deserves it's own thread.
Every player in the Howland era -- except Collison -- has fled to the NBA at the earliest chance. Nobody can begrudge Love and Westbrook, and it was pretty clear Westbrook would've stayed if not for his meteoric rise to lottery status. Also, Love has publicly said he would've liked to stay, but just couldn't pass up the lottery. (Dohn also wrote at the time that if not for his father Love very well might have stayed another year because he loved it so much. Worth noting in light of the suspicion that nobody has fun in our program.)
But AA's departure cost us a championship (imo) in 2008. LRMAM's departure cost us title contention last year. JH's departure crippled us at the point guard position this year. Only Farmar's departure didn't hurt, because it opened the door for Westbrook and Collison was a great replacement. In total, however, there's a definite pattern. And yes, it's a definite problem. But what's the solution?
The dilemma I see is that the early departures are due not to Howland's weakness but his strength. Through grueling, intense practices he's taught his talent to play elite defense, and once the players learn it they feel ready to move on. The prospect of improving their draft stock ten spots, from top 30 to top 20, does not outweigh a year's paycheck, and they seem to have the confidence that they can play at the next level and prove their case. Unlike at other programs, they know they can't come back and just coast for a year on coeds and alley-oops. So the incentive for returning is limited. I see no way out of this, unless Howland becomes adept at tricking his talent into remaining, which is unethical on his part.
Now of course the early departures have claimed that their offensive abilities were "held back." Their camps will claim anything to improve draft stock. But did AA seem held back to you? Westbrook? Love? Collison? Does Honeycutt seem held back now? Sure Farmar played in a down-tempo style that year; do you wish he played in a flash-and-dash, lose in the first round offense that would've almost certainly kept him around?
Putting aside the tired old arguments about the Howland offense, which hasn't been slow much of the time, do you really believe that "showcasing" physical abilities should take precedence over efficiency and success in the offensive scheme?
Basically, I'd like to see how people think this problem can be solved without
a) diverging fundamentally from the rigors and defensive intensity of Ben Ball (like how that's gone the last two years, by the by?)
or
b) trickiness by Howland in convincing players to stay.
Really, I'd like to know. This is doubtless a major problem. But as I see it, it's a consequence of the best of Ben Howland more than the worst. Appeasing talent and keeping them around does not seem compatible with the type of Ben Ball that teaches them fast and well and painfully.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
29 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There are three other options that you're not mentioning
The first, I understand you omitting because it’s unlikely: New NBA collective bargaining agreement that modifies the one-and-done rule to be more like the NFL- 3 years of eligibility required to walk in the door. Personally, I think this is the best solution because I like college ball more than NBA ball, and being guaranteed 3 years allows coaches to “open up the playbook” to couch it in football terms. Basically, I want to see experienced teams that have been working with each other for a while and have sets designed with their talents in mind. It’s easy to teach defensive intensity in a year to kids with elite talent, but is it that easy to develop a cohesive team that works together like they’re one mind that quickly? I say no, and I offer this year’s team as proof.
Another option is to constantly recruit blue-chip talent and plan for the turnover. Develop a bunch of vanilla sets that talented players should be able to execute, but don’t maximize the efficiency of anyone, and coast by on the talent differential. I think this is the only way to achieve consistent success while still recruiting elite talent in the one-and-done landscape. I don’t like this one at all.
The final option I see here is to recruit non-blue-chip talent, but old school warriors. With proper coaching and scheme, such a team would be able to compete with a much more talented team of one-and-dones, and the relative certainty of returning players allows the coach to scheme specifically for each player’s strengths to allow the players to play to their potential. I think this one is OK, but still prefer either the first option I presented or a return to the pre-one&done system. I could write an entire fanpost about how worthless one-and-done is. If the eligibility requirement was more like 2-3 years, at least the student-athletes would be more invested in their education when the time came to make the decision. Honestly, I don’t know that I would turn down millions a year after only my freshman year either.
Of course, I meant to mention that possibility
As the best-case scenario. A two or three year minimum might very well solve the problem entirely — I just don’t see it happening.
As for the other two options, they are both moot to our concerns. Howland is not recruiting a revolving door of John Walls. And the lesser-talent, old school types are not enough to make us an elite top-5 program year after year as we want to be.
Yeah, I'm not sure that lesser-talent teams would get us top5 consistently
but I feel like they’d be more enjoyable to watch, and at least make some final four appearances. Sprinkle in some one-and-done talent, and you might have a contender for the NC.
What I hate about the one-and-done rule is that I believe that it’s responsible for our current situation re. arrogant primadonnas. Before, the primadonnas that had skills went directly to the NBA and we didn’t have to deal with them. The primadonnas that didn’t, didn’t get drafted out of HS and got brought down a peg before we dealt with them. Right now, there’s uncertainty (at least in their minds) as to why they’re playing in college. Is it because they had the talent to go to the NBA straight out of HS, but the stupid one-and-done rule “forced” them to play a year, or would not have cut it and been here in college hoops anyway? I kind of liked the certainty of “NO, you don’t have NBA skills right now. Go play a couple years in college to improve your draft stock.”
by b d on Feb 8, 2010 2:41 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree with your coin flip idea of options.
things are never that simple.
For example, you say put aside the tired old argument of flashy offense then dive right into less defense or trickery to keep the players around.
Since when did really good defense have to come at the expense of really good offense? The run and gun Runnin Rebels of Tarkanian, and the Showtime Lakers took great advantage of great defense to key their fast break. The bad boy Pistons where known for physical defense yet managed to score in abundance.
Rather than sacrifice one to get the other, you can have it both ways. Reward the players with a fast break for playing great defense. If Howland’s Modus Operandi is to run out the clock on offense and limit the opportunities opponents have to score, take a look at the Princeton Offense, which does just that, but also takes a good coordinated effort at scoring.
5 guys passing the ball around the perimeter before jacking up a hurried shot is not an offense. And, I believe that is a bigger contributor to early defections than anything else.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
You need to stop using the following as an example
Reward the players with a fast break for playing great defense.
CBH teams have consistently run fast breaks off of turnovers. There’s no doubt that CBH would like to limit the possessions in the game when his team has the lead. If you had a defense that was as good as ours has been in the past, that’s the smart thing to do. But this whole fastbreak nonsense is getting old and tired.
I "need" to? really?
I come here for healthy debate and get the best amalgamation of UCLA centered sports information. If I sound like a broken record it’s because that is my opinion. Am I no longer entitled to voice it?
Why is scoring more nonsense? I like basketball precisely because it is fast paced and energetic. To slow down a sport that was meant to make athletes run is counter intuitive in my book.
Is this thread not about premature departures from the program and all possible facets of the issue? Is this not the place to air my opinion. Please tell me Ty why my opinion is no more welcome than any of the other posts.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
You basically don't want Ben Howland to be our coach
If our three runs to the final four were too slow and ugly for you, then it’s really a moot point. If you prefer quantity to quality when it comes to offense, and speed for the sake of speed over good shot selection and creation, then you’ll never be satisfied by Howland. The Tarkanian model is based on a suffocating full court press which very very few coaches have succeeded with. Right now the only ones are Pitino and the coach of Missouri (who hasn’t exactly won a championship).
As for current programs that play great defense and have the kind of circus offense that satisfies you — name one. I can’t. There is only so much practice time in college, and it requires some kind of emphasis to one side or the other just in terms of investment. What you want is a team that plays moderate defense and superfast offense, which will never happen (successfully) under Howland.
Hell, forget college
It doesn’t happen anywhere. The NBA teams of the recent past that have depended on an all offensive “push the ball” strat have also been known as horrible defensive teams. Phoenix, Golden State…before that, Dallas…all crappy defensive teams.
Well I guess reading comprehension would help
First of all, why you like basketball is irrelevant. Second, you are more than welcome to voice your opinion again and again…if what you’re saying isn’t demonstrably false. Then it just becomes annoying. Notice I never said anything about recruits possibly not wanting to play in Howland’s half court sets. You could very well have a point there, and I don’t dispute that because I can’t disprove it. HOWEVER, this isn’t the first time you’ve busted out this “Howland doesn’t fast break off of turnovers” mantra, and it’s BS. Quit repeating it, because we both know it’s not true.
Actually, all great teams are good at both offense and defense.
My contention with CBH is that as long as he overemphasizes defense to the point that it affects our team’s offense; we will never be a great team. And it takes a great team (or a very good and very balanced one) to win a National Championship.
I never said we NEVER fastbreak under Ben Howland. I’m saying we can fast break a lot more.
Blue- when did I say I don’t want CBH to be our head coach?
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Too bad for you we have been good at offense
It’s just not in the method that you’d like to see. The stats and efficiency ratings tell the story. That point is not up for debate. And yes, when you say things like “reward players for playing defense” it implies that he does not do that, and that’s BS, because we have consistently pushed the ball off of TOs. That point is not up for debate either.
Here’s an idea for fastbreaking more: Play better defense. It is true that we strive for fundamentals and positioning in our man to man over playing the passing lanes, which creates fewer of the turnovers needed to fast break (can’t exactly run the ball off of a shotclock violation, sideline trap, or charge), but nonetheless, fastbreaks start with DEFENSE, and right now, we play very little of that, so there’s very little point in talking about offensive pace.
Offense is definitely not the primary issue for me this season
My issue with this season has been defense and there is that one guy who is the posterboy for it. The problem with this year’s team has been due to the fact that’s it’s core leaders are offensively oriented and thrive only shots are falling from outside.
The consternation has been all about defense and lack there of it this season and in number of key spurts last season. Sure our offense could use some adjustments here and there, but to me that has never been the primary issue. The primary issue is how we can get our program to reorient itself towards defense and fundamentals again.
What really concerns me
Is that for a variety of reasons, we simply can’t play man to man anymore, and that’s going to hurt down the road. All those times that commentators talked about our point guard, whoever it was, being the lynchpin of the defense, staying in front of their man, were absolutely spot on. We’ve had Farmar, Collison, and Westbrook in that position, and they (when JF was healthy) all had above average lateral quickness to shut off most drives (at the college level). That’s huge, and it keeps our system intact. Now, we’re going virtually an entire season without practicing the man to man defense that we’re going to need down the road, and we won’t even be able to begin going back to it until someone steps up and commits to keeping opposing guards out of the paint.
Yep
The infusion of recruits coming in next season better enable us to play that classic man-to-man defense again. If they can’t and the current bunch of guys (minus the three seniors) can’t pick it up on that department, we will be hurting even more.
do you see JS2 as ready to play that defense from the start of the season?
Or Bobo? Or are people overstating the importance of having a mobile big to hedge in CBH’s scheme?
Mexi, you didn't say it, but that's what your desires amount to
If you think Howland overemphasizes defense, then you have to prefer another coach. It’s like saying Mike Leach overemphasizes passing, or Paul Johnson overemphasizes the flexbone option, or Pitino and Tarkanian overemphasize the press.
You don’t become great at those things without emphasizing them. I for one think Howland’s emphases are just fine, so long as he has the talent to execute them.
There are a couple of issues
at work here. One is the recruitment of the “instant impact” type of player, the sure-fire NBA lottery pick. Howland has brought only one of this type of player (Love) during his tenure here, where other elite programs are bringing in this type of player, sometimes 2 or more of them, every year. (Holiday was also supposed to be that type of player, yet turned out to be vastly over-hyped). Guys like Tyreke Evans, John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Xavier Henry, Harrison Barnes…just to name a few…are barely giving us a look.
The second issue is the retention of what I call the “NBA fringe” type of player…these are not instant impact players, but are players that with experience and a few collegiate seasons under their belt, can develop into collegiate superstars and work their way into a high 1st round draft pick. We have had several of these during Howland’s tenure. The problem is that these players are leaving before we can get their maximum impact, before they are actually good enough to get us over the hump.
While other elite programs are either attracting the “instant impact” player or retaining the “NBA fringe” type of player longer, we are whiffing at both of these type of players.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
I would also add
Collison most likely would have fled early if he didn’t get PWNed by Memphis (which was a Howland coaching booboo). If Collison hadn’t gotten exposed against Memphis, he was on his way of becoming a first round pick and not returning to Westwood. That is itself an interesting scenario, because it might have meant Holiday playing the point from the getgo the following season.
+1
That post is spot on. We’re not exactly bringing in a ton of the impact players, but we haven’t kept the fringe guys either.
To succeed, bringing in impact players helps, but keeping fringe guys is probably the biggest key. Just a look back at the past few champions:
UNC – kept it’s team together. People forget that a lot of their players were fringe 1st rounder/2nd rounder players after their debacle against KU in 2008 – and of course, we all remember Hansbrough as the Tim Tebow of NCAA basketball during that time. But they stuck around and won.
KU – kept it’s team together. Again, they had a lot of fringe NBA players at the time they lost to us the prior year – of course, Brandon Rush getting injured turned into a blessing for them. Success the next year pushed the draft stock of a lot of those guys higher.
Florida – kept all their players, many of whom were lottery locks – this is more of a rarity.
In fact, taking a cursory glance, most of the champions the past decade were exactly the same situation – fringe players who were convinced to stick around another year and boosted their stock by sticking around. I’m sure the extra experience in college and winning it all helped them at the next level as well. And of course, team’s bringing in an impact player for the year they run (e.g. a Carmelo Anthony) doesn’t hurt either…
Other factors people need to take account off
Even PAA – the ultimate Ben Ball Warrior – was looking to leave after his third season. He had finished his undergraduate degree and was looking for contracts in Europe. From what I have heard if he had gotten a legit contract, he would have been gone. When no options emerged on that front, he decided to go the graduate school route via UCLA (which of course he was more than qualified for).
JS – Again if he had legit shot of going low first or second round after his fourth season, he wouldn’t have been back for his fifth.
Both of those guys along with DC came back last season (and I am grateful for that) not necessarily out of loyalty, but more out of not having the best of options in terms of playing pro hoops.
So the real question is
…is this indicative of a lack of charisma on CBH’s part (in that he can’t convince these fringe players to stick around) or is it just too much money? Would a hypothetical other coach with “more charisma” than CBH be able to convince, say, JH to stick around for an extra season or two? I’m not sure, but I’m tending toward “No.” I feel like the only solution that would ensure that players stick around is the demise of the one-and-done rule in favor of a more NFL-esque 2-3 years of eligibility.
Or, they could adopt the MLB model in which players may be drafted at any time after HS unless they attend a four-year college, in which case they must complete 3 years before they’re eligible. I kind of like this idea, because I’m not a fan of forcing kids who think they have NBA potential to complete three years against their will, because they would probably turn into bad eggs ala DG.
by b d on Feb 8, 2010 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
This is good discussion
Here is what folks should think about. What is a successful management structure. In a successful management structure IMHO, the CEO is flanked by strong minded lieutenants, who have the ability to push back once in a while and challenge that CEO with different ideas. It never serves a CEO well if he or she is surrounded by bunch of “yes mans” (kind of led to Petey’s stagnation in his later years at Southern Cal).
Ben Howland during his most successful stretches had strong minded assistant and recruiters in the form of Jamie Dixon and Kerry Keating. Jamie is never coming home except when he might succeed Howland few years from now (here is to hoping that). Keating … who knows there might be a shot. In the mean time, I don’t have the confidence in current staff in playing that role.
I believe in Coach Daniels. He has a proven track record in coaching bigs. But he has never been known as a ace recruiter. I think we need a strong lieutenant in Coach Howland’s staff. Garson and Duncan might be nice guys and above average recruiters, but they are not elite assistants. We need new blood in that department who will also help Howland play a “good cop”/"bad cop routine.
That way while Howland can instill the foundation and fundamentals, the players can have a relentlessly positive figure around them who they can related to instead of expressing their angst through tweeter or facebook.
Then the solution is simple
CRN becomes CBH’s second hand man. Relentless optimism and a kickass recruiter. Let’s give the man a raise and a new title.
About Scott Duncan
I’m pretty sure his purpose is to be an ace recruiter. He filled that role in Oregon — which has always gotten great talent, and wasted it — and he’s supposed to have that role with us. Apparently he was instrumental in poaching Moser and other members of our highly ranked classes, particularly those from the north. They haven’t seemed too hot so far, but I think he has a reputation for recruiting high profile guys.
As far as I’m concerned, he has a chance to redeem himself with a surprising Spring finish to this coming class, but I’d like to know more about his duties in detail.
Another problem is: how many guys like AA exist?
Guys with offensive talent who are willing to be defensive stoppers?
There just aren’t that many. You usually have defensive guys who are extremely raw on O, or flashy talents who don’t want to spend energy on intense defense. The AA model isn’t an easy one to recruit.
FWIW
I saw a NBA draft site that had ML projected around the 20th pick in the draft, it hasn’t been updated this season but take it as you may
"I can't believe I ate the whole thing" Homer Simpson
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
